Lab
See how this opinion breaks down by gender, political spectrum and generation — and who shares your view.
Gender
9 comments
There is at least one context in which trigger warnings are essential to protecting the health of viewers
One very, very specific context in which "trigger warnings" are absolutely necessary is in content that has the potential to trigger epileptic seizures. (1)
This is seen more widely in cinema and on television than it is in online contexts, and is arguably overlooked in dialogues about trigger warnings.
It can be incredibly frustrating for people with epilepsy to see the term be entirely associated with (no less valid) non neurological conditions and dismissed. Though there is research to suggest that trigger warnings do little to diminish the impact of distressing content in trauma survivors(2); there is absolutely no question that some frequencies of flashing light can trigger seizures in those with photosensitive epilepsy. Sensitivity to flashing lights is tested by EEGs and diagnosed based on measured and individual anecdotal reports. (3)
To suggest that trigger warnings are unnecessary is ignorant of applications of the word; dismissive to people reporting that they cushion trauma and actually physically dangerous for people with photosensitive epilepsy.
Very true, it’s a shame the way buzzwords pave over nuanced issues like this; so many people are now opposed to a concept for unrelated reasons that it harms people with epilepsy.
TL;DR: Trigger warnings are necessary to help survivors of trauma tackle one of the four main effects of PTSD, namely, having to avoid reminders of the event.
Post Traumatic Stress Disorder has adverse effects on daily life that survivors must tackle:
- Reliving/ re-experiencing the event
- Avoiding situations that remind you of the event
- Negative changes in belief and feelings
- Hyperarousal or feeling in high alert
The second of these effects is hugely important and can be helped by others through the maintenance of trigger warnings as such warnings will signify that images or descriptions may be potentially distressing and cause a negative emotional response.
Unfortunately, as Aastha Jani observes, 'Mainstream media does not treat issues of mental health with the care and sensitivity that they should, perpetuating a toxic media environment that is a battlefield for those who have experienced trauma. ' And so, trigger warnings are neither valued nor used as much as they should be. However, this is easy to rectify.
Trigger warnings are in no way hard to incorporate yet they make a mass of difference to those suffering.
TL;DR Multiple studies have proved that trigger warnings are largely ineffective in preparing people/trauma survivors to face sensitive content. They are unnecessary because they are not effective. However, I still believe that alternative forms of more effective content warnings are necessary.
Trigger warnings, which aim to bring emotional safety by prewarning people of certain ‘triggers’ within content, are being identified as being ineffective according to new studies. Alongside other researchers, the Clinical Psychological Science Journal have determined that trigger warnings “offer little to no help in avoiding painful memories and perhaps are even harmful for the survivors of past emotional trauma”. If trigger warnings no longer work how they are supposed to then they are an unnecessary asset in society today and should no longer be used.
However, although I find trigger warnings unnecessary I still feel that broader content warnings are essential for the modern world. Content warnings are a lot less restrictive than trigger warnings and are used to warn consumers of content that might be generally upsetting for anybody. This differs from trigger warnings which use a system of false hierarchy in its attempt to categorise what content is the most traumatising and disturbing.
Trigger warnings are unnecessary because they are ineffective and prejudiced. They dictate what people can be upset by and what can cause a traumatic episode in an individual, despite the fact that every person could be triggered by a range of different factors. General content warnings are still necessary however, as they provide a more general insight into any upsetting content
Thanks for sharing that: I didn't know.
Trigger warnings are not censorship, so I don't have an issue with them. However, I also don't think we should overly INSIST on them.
For many people, if the topic is triggering, the trigger warning itself may be triggering. Furthermore, almost anything can be a trigger.
In my case, "theatre" was and somewhat is "triggering" in a sense, after a horrible incident in college. However, I'm well aware it would be unfair to expect or demand people forewarn me about references to "theatre". That if I could not function without such warnings, it was my job to seek help about it, not everyone ELSE's job to prevent me from hearing about it.
But depending on the trigger, isolation makes the issue worse. The bulk of the issue in my case was mitigated by just exposing myself to it more. I also see a therapist regarding the incident itself.
Some triggers are much more of a process though. Particularly regarding combat scenes and other violence. These should definitely have warnings or ratings.
The issue of trigger warnings is nuanced and should be treated with care and sensitivity. I believe that trigger warnings are necessary because they are a way of showing empathy for people who are directly impacted by content that is objectively difficult to watch for whatever reason that may be. It is an easy accomodation to make which can put the autonomy in the hands of the individual to decide if they wish to engage with content or not.
However, there is the issue of how they are displayed and its ineffectivity. For example, often they are vague or give no indiciation of the trigger and its whereabouts in the media being consumed. I believe they can seem like a display rather than having meaningful impact for the people they were designed for as they are surface level. It can be alienating for people with triggers to feel wary and on edge due to them being essentially useless, making them a reminder of the suffering but providing no real help in discerning the suitability of the content.
Furthermore, there is the question of whether it would be better to assess why certain unnecessarily brutal and often eroticised depictions of violence are normalised in the first place. Graphic scenes can be implied rather than shown on screen for the sake of entertainment, which would make viewing a more pleasant experience for all involved and reduce the need for trigger warnings. This would address the root issue which is how victims of trauma are not taken into consideration as much as they should be. The important thing would be to take their view on board and have open conversations regarding what an effective handling of triggering content would be.
I believe there is no harm in giving people the option to disengage with content which could be detrimental to their wellbeing. It offers a sense of autonomy to the individual. While it is impossible to cater to everyone's particular needs, it is important to factor in that some scenes are universally tough to witness. The impact of seeing these scenes is much harder for people who lived them.
It is certainly an individual's responsibility to do what they can to help themselves and seek support, but doing what we can to avoid unnecessarily hurting people who are healing from real experiences that are exploited for entertainment is a societal responsibility. Sometimes, such as in the case of seizures, warnings are life or death and they require minimal effort.
In conclusion, trigger warnings are necessary but they need to be reformed so they offer a better idea of what to expect, rather than being so vague they become void of meaning. I believe that the best approach is to discuss with sufferers of PTSD to decide what the most respectful and effective approach is.
i think it is possible for people to be triggered purely by seeing the word, however they are still necessary and should specify what the trigger may be.
Trigger warnings reinforce sensitivity, which often harms who they aim to protect. Cognitive behavioral Psychology has found that exposure therapy to sensitive issues is much more helpful for victims of traumatic experiences. The end goal is to become anti-fragile, which requires stepping out of comfort zones. The unfortunate truth is the longer you shelter someone from a triggering topic, the more sensitive they become.
Make the case or invite a friend to comment!